Appeal No. 2004-1110
Application No. 08/866,754
The prior art set forth below is relied upon by the examiner
in the section 102 rejections before us:
Kuhfus 4,672,666 Jun. 9, 1987
Gordecki et al. (Gordecki) 5,469,982 Nov. 28, 1995
Photo marked AW showing Motorola telephone housing, 1994
(Motorola).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claims 52-57 are rejected as being
anticipated by Kuhfus, claims 52 and 54-58 are rejected as being
anticipated by Gordecki, and claims 52-58 are rejected as being
anticipated by Motorola.1
We refer to the brief2 and to the answer for a complete
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning these rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the rejections
based on Gordecki and Motorola but not the rejection based on
Kuhfus.
1 As indicated on page 3 of the brief, the appealed claims
will stand or fall together. Accordingly, in assessing the
merits of the above noted rejections, we will focus on claim 52
which is the sole independent claim on appeal.
2 We will not consider or further comment upon the
appellants’ arguments regarding the examiner’s drawing objection
since this is a petitionable rather than appealable matter as
explained on page 2 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007